Exactly. Why isn't Costco out of business again? What about Whole Foods? Why are they not out of business?What about QuikTrip? What about Trader Joe's?

Why are the richest americans getting pay increases of 10% or more every year while wages are stagnant at the lowest levels. And why are the vast majority of the super rich sitting on their cash and not reinvesting it?

F*ck this guy. As Reich said he's stooped to a bunch of ad hominem attacks, presumably so he can suck at the cock of Forbes Magazine and whore himself out for his next right wing libertarian bestseller.

Wow. Great link. The guy sounds a bit frothy and over the top, so take it with a small grain of salt. He could be as far right wing as reich is left.

But he's absolutely right to crush Reich. Reich not only gets economics wrong, he blatantly lies. And he fools many many economically clueless idiots. Of you do nothing else to further your understanding of economics, do yourself this favor:ignore Robert reich.

Love the take down of the Henry Ford point. The idea that Henry ford paid his workers more so they could afford his product is one of the more laughable left wing myths. Utterly nonsensical.

This guy claims Ford and others raised wages because of increased labor productivity. Yeah, I doubt it. The current era is proof positive that doesn't make sense - we're at a time of ever increasing worker productivity, and have been for ages, yet wages have been stagnant for a very long time.

Problem with economics is dingbats/partisans like this guy and Greg Mankiw have widely read textbooks out there.

Debeo Summa Credo:But he's absolutely right to crush Reich. Reich not only gets economics wrong, he blatantly lies. And he fools many many economically clueless idiots. Of you do nothing else to further your understanding of economics, do yourself this favor:ignore Robert reich.

Your argument is just as reasoned and well-thought out as the author's.

Mentat:Debeo Summa Credo: But he's absolutely right to crush Reich. Reich not only gets economics wrong, he blatantly lies. And he fools many many economically clueless idiots. Of you do nothing else to further your understanding of economics, do yourself this favor:ignore Robert reich.

Your argument is just as reasoned and well-thought out as the author's.

But better than any argument Robert Reich has made!

Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.

Debeo Summa Credo:Love the take down of the Henry Ford point. The idea that Henry ford paid his workers more so they could afford his product is one of the more laughable left wing myths. Utterly nonsensical.

Except that's this editorial doesn't really address that claim, it simply dismisses it as an urban legend and then immediately takes a sharp turn into DERPistan by arguing against a strawman instead of the actual claim.

So...Rich people dont buy a lot of things, they tend to own things, and make capital work for them...but not by buying things.

As inequality grows the poor people stop buying stuff....and then the rich people cant sell stuff, people become unemployed, as they become unemployed they buy even LESS things.

As that occurs the economy goes to hell.

Still with me?

OK now...if poor people have MORE money...they..GASP buy more things.

This is a market driven economy. As inequality rises the economy will falter. One way of resolving this is to increase the minimum wage. There ARE alternatives, for example, a guaranteed minimum income would resolve it. But the most basic is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Especially someone who does this for a living? (note i am not a economics major, I studied computer science primarily-yes a few economics classes too).

The only reasonable explanations are that they either took some REALLY messed up drugs....or they're lying on purpose. My guess is...they're lying on purpose for financial reasons.

Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

Debeo Summa Credo:Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.

And the author isn't a partisan shill who allows himself to be misled due to his partisan zeal?

MrEricSir:Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

Mentat:MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

MrEricSir:Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

Mentat:MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.

And Aristotle wrote a science book before the common era. Just because something is older doesn't make it more correct.

Forbidden Doughnut:MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

max_pooper:I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.

Oh, no doubt about that. Just seems like this is the third or fourth time in as many business threads he's shown his face to say little more than "I agree with this typical right-wing diatribe. Suck it, libs." The passion just isn't there.You notice these kinds of things when half of your family spouts the same Tea Party bullshiat at you all the time.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:Mentat: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.

And Aristotle wrote a science book before the common era. Just because something is older doesn't make it more correct.

I don't think you understand. He wrote an economics textbook. In the 80's.

Sergeant Grumbles:max_pooper: I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.

Oh, no doubt about that. Just seems like this is the third or fourth time in as many business threads he's shown his face to say little more than "I agree with this typical right-wing diatribe. Suck it, libs." The passion just isn't there.You notice these kinds of things when half of your family spouts the same Tea Party bullshiat at you all the time.

Mentat:Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.

And the author isn't a partisan shill who allows himself to be misled due to his partisan zeal?

I caveats my original post that the author of TFA "might be as right wing as Reich is left", and to take his commentary "with a small grain of salt". Certainly wouldn't recommend getting all your economics from this guy.

So...Rich people dont buy a lot of things, they tend to own things, and make capital work for them...but not by buying things.

As inequality grows the poor people stop buying stuff....and then the rich people cant sell stuff, people become unemployed, as they become unemployed they buy even LESS things.

As that occurs the economy goes to hell.

Still with me?

OK now...if poor people have MORE money...they..GASP buy more things.

This is a market driven economy. As inequality rises the economy will falter. One way of resolving this is to increase the minimum wage. There ARE alternatives, for example, a guaranteed minimum income would resolve it. But the most basic is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Especially someone who does this for a living? (note i am not a economics major, I studied computer science primarily-yes a few economics classes too).

The only reasonable explanations are that they either took some REALLY messed up drugs....or they're lying on purpose. My guess is...they're lying on purpose for financial reasons.

Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies. You know, for "financial reasons".

But they don't. Must be all the drugs they take. Maybe you could give them some of yours, since you know better.

Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies. You know, for "financial reasons".

But they don't. Must be all the drugs they take. Maybe you could give them some of yours, since you know better.

Sigh.

No its because while as a group doing this is a much better thing for all of us, individually its more beneficial for you to do the opposite....on a individual level. but when everyone does it you're kinda hosed. But despite that...its hard to go the other way because then your competitors are more competitive.....

And let em be more specific....Those truly intelligent, better then us people? I've met a lot of them. They're not the brightest. They tend to follow the herd. Seriously. They are generally VERY VERY sociable often very good with people, or delivering messages. And they tend to hire people just like them.

Watched one go from being a Intel VP to running a smaller business....and it was a horrific trainwreck.

So...Rich people dont buy a lot of things, they tend to own things, and make capital work for them...but not by buying things.

As inequality grows the poor people stop buying stuff....and then the rich people cant sell stuff, people become unemployed, as they become unemployed they buy even LESS things.

As that occurs the economy goes to hell.

Still with me?

OK now...if poor people have MORE money...they..GASP buy more things.

This is a market driven economy. As inequality rises the economy will falter. One way of resolving this is to increase the minimum wage. There ARE alternatives, for example, a guaranteed minimum income would resolve it. But the most basic is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Especially someone who does this for a living? (note i am not a economics major, I studied computer science primarily-yes a few economics classes too).

The only reasonable explanations are that they either took some REALLY messed up drugs....or they're lying on purpose. My guess is...they're lying on purpose for financial reasons.

Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies. You know, for "financial reasons".

But they don't. Must be all the drugs they take. Maybe you could give them some of yours, since you know better.

Ford's $5 wage to convert his workers into Model T customers is an urban legend that thinking economist dismiss as nonsense. Henry Ford's employees would have had to buy forty cars each to absorb the half million Model T's rolling off his assembly line in 1916. Ford could sell his Model T's only if wages were rising generally throughout the economy, not just in his own factories.

First of all, the reason he did it was to reduce turnover. Secondly, his higher wages attracted the best automechanics in the industry and it was only when he had the best of the best that production turnaround took off. But most importantly, every competitor and factory in Detroit had to increase their wages also to keep personnel from jumping ship to Ford. Ford had created a wages arms race that resulted in an entire city having the most affluent working class in the country. The whole city could afford Model T cars -- Ford even referred to it as profit sharing rather than wages: People were giving their wages back in exchange for the cars they helped build.

I've ranted a lot on here about fiscal liquidity and the money cycle, how it has to keep moving through the classes and everyone prospers, and there is no purer example of how it works than Detroit in the first half of the 20th century.

Debeo Summa Credo:Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies.

It might negatively affect stock prices and take longer than a quarter to have positive effect. Shareholders, who demand exponential growth and absolve themselves of all responsibility, would never stand for it. They don't want a safe investment, they want a jackpot after which they don't have to care anymore.

Mentat:Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mentat: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.

And Aristotle wrote a science book before the common era. Just because something is older doesn't make it more correct.

I don't think you understand. He wrote an economics textbook. In the 80's.

Ah. Well, I see my sarcasm meter needs recalibration and/or I shouldn't drink on work nights. I'll probably get a new meter, it's easier.

Reich's resume raises one red flag: He is not an economist but a lawyer - a Yale Law School classmate of Hillary Clinton, who studied a smattering of economics for his PPE (politics, philosophy, and economics) degree at Oxford - a Rhodes Scholar no less.

Debeo Summa Credo:Mentat: Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.

And the author isn't a partisan shill who allows himself to be misled due to his partisan zeal?

I caveats my original post that the author of TFA "might be as right wing as Reich is left", and to take his commentary "with a small grain of salt". Certainly wouldn't recommend getting all your economics from this guy.

Biased though he may be, it doesn't take much to tear down Reich.

So you want to take his commentary with a grain of salt while insisting that his commentary dismantled Reich's arguments?

max_pooper:Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Wow. Great link. The guy sounds a bit frothy and over the top, so take it with a small grain of salt. He could be as far right wing as reich is left.

Is it just me, or has DSC really been phoning it in lately?

I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.

Which is weird, because Debeo Summa Credoclaims to have MBA, CPA and CFA designations. With those credentials, you'd think he'd be a Fortune 500 CFO, or a hedge fund manager, or at least make fewer errors in Fark threads.

El Pachuco:Which is weird, because Debeo Summa Credo claims to have MBA, CPA and CFA designations. With those credentials, you'd think he'd be a Fortune 500 CFO, or a hedge fund manager, or at least make fewer errors in Fark threads.